Fire-fighting foams manufactured with the chemicals PFOS and PFOA were the standard from the 1970s until the early 2000s.

Since 2011, no import, manufacture or use of the compounds is permitted in New Zealand.

Australia has had an ongoing response to the use of these fire-fighting foams in recent years, notes Dr Amy Heffernan, NHMRC-ARC Dementia Development Research Fellow, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience & Mental Health, Australia.

PFOS and PFOA are part of a family of chemicals known as per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), Heffernan explains.

“PFAS are used mainly as surfactants, that is, as detergents, foaming agents, and emulsifiers.

“The two most commonly used and studied PFAS are perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).”

All members of the PFAS family, including PFOS and PFOA contain fluorine atoms, Heffernan adds.

“The carbon-fluorine bond is exceptionally strong, and this property is what makes them useful for industrial applications.

“It also means PFAS don’t break down easily in the environment, can travel long distances (e.g. through contaminated groundwater), and bioaccumulate in the food chain. In humans, it takes 4-5 years for the amount of PFAS in your blood to reduce by half (3.8 years for PFOS and 5.4 years for PFOA).”

Persistent polluters

In 2009 PFOS and PFOA were listed were listed under the Stockholm Convention, an international environmental treaty that aims to eliminate the use of persistent organic pollutants.

“Participating countries are required to eliminate or reduce the release of these chemicals into the environment,” Heffernan notes.

“Australia and New Zealand are both signatories to the original agreement, but have not ratified the amendments covering PFOS and PFOA.

“The Australian Department of Environment called for ratification in October 2017.”

There is concern about environmental contamination with PFOS and PFOA because they are persistent, capable of long-range transport, and bioaccumulate, Heffernan says.

“Note, these are associations, and do not provide evidence that PFAS cause any of these conditions,” Heffernan advises.

“However, Commonwealth Government [i.e. Australian Federal Government] enHealth Guidance Statements (last updated September 2017) advise that ‘research has not conclusively demonstrated that PFAS are related to specific illnesses, even under conditions of occupational exposure’.”

Contamination control

Heffernan knows “that there are some remediation options for contaminated sites, but admits she doesn’t know the details.

“More than 100 sites around Australia are affected, including metropolitan and regional airports, rural and urban firefighting stations, industrial sites and military bases.

“In two of the most contaminated military sites, Oakey (QLD) and Williamtown (NSW), residents have launched class action against the federal government.”

The risk of PFAS to human and environmental health was recognised in the early 2000s.

Alerts issued

“Australia’s national chemical regulator NICNAS (National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme) issued alerts on the use of PFOS/PFOA to state environment departments in 2003.

“Airservices Australia, which is largely responsible for airport firefighting services, switched to a PFAS-free fire-fighting foam in 2010; the Australian Department of Defence continues to use PFAS-containing foams.

“The main route of human exposure to PFAS is via contaminated food or water. Based on a review of the scientific evidence by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), the Commonwealth Department of Health has established Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) values for PFOS (0.02 µg/kg/d) and PFOA (µg/kg/d).”

The Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality have also been updated to protect aquatic ecosystems.